Zulveta v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company et al
Filing
105
ORDER adopting 94 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that Defendants' 12 17 22 28 Motions to dismiss are granted and Defendants State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, Philpot Law Firm PA, Steadman Haw kins Clinic of the Carolinas, Wilson Jones Carter and Baxley PA, Robert P Restrepo Jr, Stephen R Bruner, Irvin H Philpot III, Curtis Elliot, and Wesley J Shull are dismissed from this case, with the case proceeding at this time solely on the retaliat ion cause of action alleged against Defendants TC Unlimited Inc and Tim Case. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's 67 Motion to amend his complaint is denied as futile. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 12/21/15. (kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Armando Despaigne Zulveta,
Plaintiff,
vs.
State Automobile Mutual Insurance
Company; Philpot Law Firm, PA;
TC Unlimited, Inc.; Steadman Hawkins
Clinic of the Carolinas; Wilson, Jones,
Carter, & Baxley, PA; Robert P.
Restrepo, Jr.; Stephen R. Bruner;
Irvin H. Philpot, III; Tim Case;
Curtis Elliot; and Wesley J. Shull,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 6:15-2880-HMH-KFM
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to
which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).
1
The Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of
objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates
it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss, docket numbers 12, 17, 22 and 28,
are granted and Defendants State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, Philpot Law Firm,
PA, Steadman Hawkins Clinic of the Carolinas, Wilson Jones Carter and Baxley, PA, Robert
P. Restrepo, Jr., Stephen R. Bruner, Irvin H. Philpot, III, Curtis Elliot, and Wesley J. Shull, are
dismissed from this case, with the case proceeding at this time solely on the retaliation cause of
action alleged against Defendants TC Unlimited, Inc. and Tim Case. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, docket number 67, is
denied as futile.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
December 21, 2015
2
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty
(30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?